Re: [v10][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

  > I think the confusion here is that the d_config->rdms array (which
> num_rdms is the length of) is in the public API (because it is in
> libxl_types.idl) but is apparently only being used in this series as an
> internal state for the domain build process (i.e. xl doesn't ever add
> anything to the array rdms).
>
> Tiejun, is that an accurate summary?

Yes.

>
> If the field is in the public API then the possibility of something
> being passed in their must be considered now, even if this particular
> series adds no such calls, since we cannot prevent 3rd party users of
> libxl adding such configuration.
>
> Is the possibility of the toolstack (i.e. the caller of libxl) supplying
> an array of rdm regions seems to be being left aside for future work or
> it not intended to ever support that?

Its very possible so you're right.
Thanks
Tiejun

>
> Ian.
>
>>
>>> And if you still worry about something, I can add assert() at the
>>> beginning of this function like this,
>>>
>>> assert(!d_config->num_rdms && !d_config->rdms).
>>
>> If you are sure that this assertion is correct, then that would be
>> proper.
>>
>> But as I say above, I don't think it is.
>>
>> Ian.
>
>
>